Edwards NYT's cover story

by Jerome Armstrong, Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 06:04:13 AM EDT

Well, the NYT's gave John Edwards a good photo shoot, thats for sure. This is probably the major article for Edwards on the campaign to date. It's written by Matt Bai, whom also has a book coming out in August titled: "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics."

This is not the usual on-the-road with the pol story. Bai digs into the issue of poverty itself alongside the meta-politics at work for Edwards in profiling the issue of poverty. Poverty is not something that's easily overcome. It is something that takes families generations to work themselves out of, and taking in the view of poverty at a global level, it takes quite a vision to see it achieved. But it's either that route, or the Republican Hobbesian mentality. By making this a centerpiece issue of his campaign, Edwards does show an inclination toward that vision which aligns with liberals and progressives.

On the meta issues, the strategy of the Edwards campaign, more than any of the other candidacies, reflects how to win the nomination from the perspective of 2004. The big question is whether things have changed enough in the electoral calendar for the storyline to be different, or if winning a few states early on creates a slingshot effect in '08 like it did in '04.

The celebrity campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has overshadowed Edwards to date; in a similar way, the traditional campaigns of Edwards and Kerry were overshadowed by Dean's netroots/grassroots campaign throughout 2003. I would be surprised if Edwards is able to compete financially with the numbers that Clinton and Obama rake in during Q2, but you only need so much money to win in IA, and it's not that many millions. In many ways, Edwards is running the same campaign, just more strategically sound. The article mentions that Elizabeth is spending more time in North Carolina for cancer treatment, and that's somewhat of a wildcard (to say the least) for the campaign, as for how it will impact his candidacy next January.

Tags: John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

39 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

Good post, Jerome.

I thought the article was mixed, but okay.

Edwards choice to advocate on behalf of the poor drew me to him this year. I voted for Dean in 2004. I see a coalition between many of the Edwards 2004 folks and the Dean folks this time.

Will that be enough? We will see. At least we have a clear choice between a progressive canddiate and the two celebrities.

by littafi 2007-06-12 06:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

Yeah. That's was led me to support Edwards this year, also.

by KimPossible 2007-06-12 06:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

progressive?

He lives in a palace that could put Middle East kings to shame.

by carolinezhang 2007-06-12 06:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: progressive?

Oh, please. That's just a nonsense attack. FDR's Hyde Park is much bigger.

by Adam B 2007-06-12 07:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: progressive?

Not to mention Rush Limbaugh's 33,000 sq. ft. primary residence. Wonder if he lets the poor have some of his leftover oxycontin and viagra.

by jallen 2007-06-12 07:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: progressive?

So you proudly put Edwards on par with Rush? That does not make any sense.

by carolinezhang 2007-06-12 07:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: progressive?

No, your statement doesn't make sense.

by jallen 2007-06-12 07:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: progressive?

There is no correlation between the size of one's house and the authentic progressiveness of one's politics. Indeed, if it weren't for wealthy liberals voting against their economic self-interests, there wouldn't be a progressive wing of the Democratic party.

by Adam B 2007-06-12 07:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Do you have to be poor to talk about the poor?

If that were the case, you'd have to be uneducated to support education reform. give me a break.

by samwithans 2007-06-12 07:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

And Hillary and Obama

Live in passive-solar sod houses?

I suppose I should be glad that the worst his detractors can say of Edwards is "His house is too big and his hair is too pretty." But it's infuriating to hear erstwhile Democrats dismiss the issue of poverty in favor of such fundamentally shallow concerns.

Honestly, I wish Clinton and Obama were better candidates. Then maybe their supporters wouldn't have to resort to such petty snipes to gain traction.

by Drew 2007-06-12 08:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

The latest Hillary troll

come to attack Edwards and Obama and progressives.

by okamichan13 2007-06-12 08:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

I think Edwards needs to worry more about winning the primary than the general election. He's trailing pretty far behind both Clinton and Obama. He needs some kind of juice, or SOMETHING to make him stand out and worthy of front-runner status. He's got to do something.

by sea shadow 2007-06-12 06:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

I don't understand this comment. Of the big three, only Edwards seems to be running a primary campaign--one that's focused on the base and on the early states. The other two--Obama's, in particular--seems focused on national polling, fundraising, and potential appeal in a general election. Edwards, meanwhile, is way ahead on the issues--developing an agenda that will thrill Dems once they tune in to the distinctions between candidates--and building up strong organizations in the early states, organizations that will only grow stronger once Edwards gets support from Labor.

I'm quite certain that the Edwards campaign is very happy about where they are. They, and they alone, seem to know how to go about winning a primary campaign.

by david mizner 2007-06-12 06:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

Remember...Joe Lieberman was ahead at this point in '03. I'm not worried at all :)

by catchawave 2007-06-12 07:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

I had mixed

feelings about the article, as I think most Edwards supporters would. On the one hand, it coveyed the idea that his committment to economic justice is genuine. On the other hand, Bai relied both not enough and too much on his interviews with Edwards. That is, it almost never quoted Edwards at length, denying him a voice and making him seem constricted and tight. But it also inferred to much from what Edwards said to him. For example, Edwards apparently told Bai that he didn't want to blame anyone for poverty. Why? I don't know, maybe he was in a non-blaming mood. But that comment runs coutner to Edwards's record of calling out bad actors. Here's one example:

When we sit down for an interview, one of the first questions I ask him is whether he thinks of himself as a populist. "If I knew what that meant," he laughs, "I could answer that question." But as I start to offer a definition, he interjects: "Can I answer first, then you tell me? I don't want my answer to be influenced by the other definition. If being a populist means standing up for regular people so they don't get... ," and here he pauses, searching for the right words, "stomped on by powerful multinational corporations, the answer is, 'Yes.'"

Does his words to Bai indicate that Edwards is trying soften his edges? I hope not.

by david mizner 2007-06-12 06:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I had mixed

I wish Edwards would read the populist moment by Goodwyn so he knew what a populist was.

by adamterando 2007-06-12 06:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

Bai still manages to insert some of the narrative we've come to expect.

John Edwards built a mansion. So don't believe him.
John Edwards' ideas are old hat. I don't believe him.
John Edwards borrows plans from others. So don't believe him.
John Edwards wants very badly to win. So don't believe him.
John Edwards used to be an optimist, but not now. So don't believe him.
John Edwards doesn't know how to build a mandate for poverty. So don't believe him.
John Edwards has repackaged himself. So don't believe him.
John Edwards paid for an expensive haircut. So don't believe him. John Edwards is a hypocrite.

Mainstream Media Narrative: (yawn) The Democratic Party candidate is a hypocrite, has trouble with the truth, is a flip-flopper, elitist, stiff, boring, not a man of the people, no one likes him very much, incompetent campaigner, says one thing but does another so you can't believe what he says.

All which equals: Is not to be trusted. Or, don't vote for him. This is the Republican narrative for most opponent candidates, with fill-in-the-blanks for individual Democrats. Earth tones anyone? The pundits have become stenographers for Republican talking points and narratives.

Jeff Cohen: "Indeed, current media coverage of Edwards bears an eerie resemblance to the scary reporting on the Democratic frontrunner four years ago, Howard Dean. If Edwards is still ahead as the Iowa balloting nears, expect coverage to get far nastier."
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007 05/31/1570

by mrobinsong 2007-06-12 06:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Hillary's Iraq war vote

is the biggest flip flop the GOP could hope for. wanting it both ways doesn't play well

by TarHeel 2007-06-12 06:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

You are right. If Edwards gains more traction, the MSM will do to him what they did to Dean. They already have started with the whole silly haircut thing. The corporate media will not permit a true populist candidate--the people might really have a choice.

by Sagacity 2007-06-12 06:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

Part of the point of the article, however, is that Edwards is not a "true populist" as I think you'd define it:

On trade, Edwards said he'd like to include more protections for workers in any new pacts (a popular formulation that sounds better in theory than it is likely to work in reality), but he won't support the pause on new free-trade deals that some liberals want. The reason: Edwards is adamant that his antipoverty crusade extend to other countries as well, where most workers benefit from trade with the United States.

As we sat in a hotel hospitality suite in New Hampshire's north country last month, accompanied by a Muzak version of Chicago's "If You Leave Me Now," Edwards said he might consider pressuring the Fed to lower interest rates in order to tighten labor markets, but he wasn't sure. Similarly, he said he was wary of raising the tax rate on capital gains too high, fearing that it would cause capital to flee the country. He sounded equally unenthused about returning to the days of steeper levies on the superrich (beyond the tax-cut rollback he has proposed on those making more than $200,000), even though his official position is that he would consider them. "Would I be willing to consider higher rates on the highest-earning Americans -- you know, people who make millions of dollars?" he asked. "It's something I'd be open to. It's not something I'd propose."

In fact, the more you talk to Edwards, the more apparent it is that the populist label doesn't quite fit. While he talks incessantly about economic injustice, Edwards isn't proposing anything -- beyond an oil-company windfall tax, which Hillary Clinton has also embraced -- that would strike a serious blow against multinational corporations or the top tier of American earners. Even in his rhetoric, Edwards seems to deliberately avoid stoking resentments or pitting one class against another the way a true populist would, unless you count taking a few easy shots at Wal-Mart.

"Rhetorically, if you're calling Edwards an economic populist, it's true he cares a lot about the poor," says Robert Reich, who isn't yet supporting a candidate. "He evinces a lot of concern for the middle class and middle-class anxieties. But he's not in any way attacking the rich or corporations." Reich says this with a note of disappointment. "He's not explaining one fundamental fact of modern economic life, which is that the very rich have all the money."

When I asked Edwards if he blamed large corporations or the wealthiest Americans for inequality, he appeared briefly confused by the question. "No -- no," Edwards repeated, shaking his head. "I just don't think blaming helps, to be honest with you. What's the point?"

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

by Adam B 2007-06-12 07:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

True but this is a little inaccurate,

While he talks incessantly about economic injustice, Edwards isn't proposing anything -- beyond an oil-company windfall tax, which Hillary Clinton has also embraced -- that would strike a serious blow against multinational corporations or the top tier of American earners.

He has talked about collecting more corporate taxes and potentially raising marginal tax rates even higher on those making millions of dollars a year. I don't think Edwards is quite at the populist level in terms of trying to bring multi-national corporations under democratic control. But he's the only one who I think has the potential to get there.

by adamterando 2007-06-12 07:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

He's not a divisive populist

He doesn't want to pitch forces against each other. He doesn't want to use a them versus us theme.
He wants us to reclaim our rights as Americans.
he wants everybody to pitch in because it will take a lot of work to fix all our problems which have gone too long unattended to.
He has clear ideas on how to get there and has the smarts to get it done. FDR used trial and error to try out the new ideas of Keynes and others. If something didn't work, he ditched it and tried another. You need an optimist who can communicate like Edwards to get the people behind your ideas.
He's the best shot that we've had in a long time to be a people's president.
We wouldn't be talking about single payer health care or work bonds or college for everyone without Edwards pushing new bold ideas and old good ideas like demand side economics.

by Feral Cat 2007-06-12 11:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

You might want to tell Edwards that. I'm not sure he gets it. Sounds like a populist to me.

by jallen 2007-06-12 07:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

For those of us who process information more quickly via text, can you summarize where the linked videos contradict the policy conclusions above?

by Adam B 2007-06-12 08:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

Will you stand up for an energy policy by dictated by the profits of big oil companies, an environmental policy not written by the polluters?

Can we have the backbone to stand up for these 37 mil people, to stand up for millions of children who are worried about having food, who are worried about having a decent place to live, who are worried about having a decent life in front of them? Will we have the courage to stand up for these kids who need us to stand up for them, and all these forgotten Americans across the country who need us? It's who we are. We cannot walk away from our people. We cannot walk away from the heart and soul of what the Democratic Party is and should be.

And so I ask you now, will you stand up for that man in the emergency room who's holding his eight year old daughter, will you stand up for him, will you stand up with him? Will you stand up for that boy half a world away holding his 2 year old sister on his chest? Will you stand up with that young man who wants to go to college, but can't get the chance to go? And will you stand up with mothers and fathers who have children serving in Afghanistan and Iraq? Will you stand up for them? Will you stand up for America?
We have always been the party who stood with working men and women, we have always been the party that stood with the needy, we have always been the party who stood with the frail, with the children, with the elderly. It's who we are. Brothers and sisters, in times like these, we don't need to redefine the Democratic Party, we need to reclaim the Democratic Party.

I keep typing explanations only to screw it up. I need to leave in a few, so I'll leave it at that for now.

by jallen 2007-06-12 08:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Everything is relative

Not populist compared to whom? Ralph Nader, maybe. But Edwards is certainly the most populist candidate with a chance of winning the presidency in quite some time. And notice Bai's formulation: a "serious" blow. Well, an Edwards would deal the rich and multinations a blow--how serious is in the eye of the beholder.

But Bai's piece was subtly skillful in doing two somewhat contradictory things: claiming at once that he wasn't all that liberal but perhaps too liberal to win the General.

by david mizner 2007-06-12 08:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Everything is relative

Is Edwards more populist than Gephardt or Nader were? And in certain ways, H. Ross Perot was a heck of a populist too, in method more than message perhaps.

by Adam B 2007-06-12 08:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Edwards should be running as an outsider

he only served one term in elected office.

He's not in DC now. Hillary is the classic insider. Edwards should beat up washington DC and run as the outsider more emphatically and talk about the problems of lobbyists and PACs ruining DC...

It draws an obvious contrast with Hillary without pointing it out.

by TarHeel 2007-06-12 06:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

A recent Zogby poll showed that 58% of Americans think poverty will be a major issue for the next president. Edwards is the only major candidate addressing poverty in a comprehensive way. I think if the Edwards campaign can get that message out and he keeps leading on other important issues, such as Iraq, universal health care, and global warming, Edwards wins - both the primary and the general.

The problem right now is that low information voters who get most of their news from the MSM aren't getting that message. Fortunately, people in the key early states largely are.

by sirius 2007-06-12 06:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

My favorite thing about this New York Times Magazine issue on poverty was looking at the ads -- all geared not just to the wealthy, but to the super-wealthy. Luxury condominiums in New York City and Las Vegas; investment banks for multimillionaires; etc.

The greatest indictment of the dissolution of America's middle class was to be found in the advertisements, not the articles.

by The Cunctator 2007-06-12 06:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

What was best about the article was the context- i.e. the entire issue was dedicated to the disparity of wealth. So in that sense Edwards came away as someone driving public conversation to where it ought to be driven.
Matt Bai always drives me nuts w. the over-focus on some sort of psychological profile. He's not that great at it, and sub-par psychoanalysis really isn't journalism.

by sb 2007-06-12 06:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

He attacked both, and it backfired on him.

by carolinezhang 2007-06-12 06:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Whose dream candidates are these?

From an Edwards supporter:
So theres a lot of hype, so what? Honestly, on the issues Edwards has consistently been viewed as ahead of the pack. To me, Obama and Clinton are great speakers, but do little to promise change in government. Sure, Obama can yell louder than any of the other candidates, making for good sound bites, but the White House needs more than a preacher. Hillary is spending more time defending her record as a revisionist (it runs in the family)-that she's her own master architect.

by samwithans 2007-06-12 07:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Whose dream candidates are these?

How important are issues compared to how you deliver them?

by MNPundit 2007-06-12 09:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Optimist v. Realist

Well, in a perfect world issues would trump all (aside from the occasional past stint as a crack dealer or serial killer). Aside from that, issues still play an important role of course, but you make a good point. If you do talk about the issues but aren't effective, then it doesnt mean anything. That in mind, Edwards is still out front. His leadership commentary at the debate sums it up best. I know some won't agree, but that's my take.

by samwithans 2007-06-12 10:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Edwards NYT's cover story

From my perspective as an Obama supporter, I described this piece as not very flattering, in comparison to Greg Sargent's recent post ( Edwards Campaign: "Karl Rove Is Writing Rudy's Script These Days," for example.

by howieinseattle 2007-06-12 07:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Check out Bai and Edwards in NYT Mag interview

Warning: A bit long.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxJgvnKW62E"></param&gt<param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxJgvnKW62E" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

by samwithans 2007-06-12 07:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Try it again

Here it is.

by samwithans 2007-06-12 07:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Try it again

Huh, I actually like this interview.

by Korha 2007-06-12 08:27AM | 0 recs